Wilson and Plame were guests at almost every State Dinner at the White House
BUT, she was a "undercover spy"! ROFLOL!
Posted on 07/12/2005 3:31:58 PM PDT by Crackingham
That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. To try to conceal the fact that the president had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth.
Rove's lawyer now says that Rove didn't break the law against naming covert agents because he didn't know Plame's name and therefore couldn't have revealed it. Perhaps he can use such a technicality in court, but in the meantime he should resign immediately — or be fired by the president — for leaking classified information, trying to smear Wilson and possibly endangering Plame's life.
"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I trust they will follow through on this pledge."
The background on this story is crucial. Ambassador Wilson had been honored as a patriot by President George H.W. Bush for standing up to Saddam Hussein in a face-to-face confrontation in Baghdad on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. But in 2003, Wilson committed an unpardonable crime in the eyes of the second Bush White House. He exposed its lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I believe the NYT's is protecting a former Clinton Official who would know Joe Wilson and his wife quite well. Wilson and Plame were guests at almost every State Dinner at the White House
It is also possible that Wilson went to Niger not to find out about the uranium, but to WARN them that they were under suspicion.
There are subversives in the CIA, in case you weren't aware of this. Wilson was on Kerry's campaign committee. This was not an effort to find out the truth about the Niger uranium; of that I am certain.
Right...that's what I meant. Matthews was dying to get Libby and thus, Cheney.
It should be illegal to talk to a reporter
Notice Mrs. Clinton didn't add (for the microphones) the clarification: "in agreement".
Chris Matthews just said that McClellan today said that everything he said about Rove two years ago is now "inoperable." Is that true?
They are comparing him to Ron Zeigler in Watergate.
Now I really have to go. They are covering this on Fox now, but Sheperd Smith is either a democrat, dumb as a box of rocks, or both. He will screw the story up after Angle's report.
Back later.
Wilson and Plame were guests at almost every State Dinner at the White House
BUT, she was a "undercover spy"! ROFLOL!
I don't know if this is the link you are looking for, but her is one with Joe Wilson's bio where he mentions at the end: "He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters."
http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html
I caught part of hardball, and rat face david gregory didn't look like the happy camper.
He tried to interrupt Tucker Eskew, and he was livid at what Eskew was saying.
It's always a good day when the lib media takes a bath.
So, if a republican columnist who donated money to the republican party, or paid "talk show host" says something about democrats, it isn't true? If I have to disbelieve this man, I'll apply the same standards to all.
I saw a debate on C-span last year I think, between this idiot Sheer and Christopher Hitchens....
HE is a looney tunes, and Hitchens rolled right over him!!!
I simply gave you full disclosure. Believe what you want, of whomever.
I would be surprised if you found a columnist who donated *money* to Republicans, so if you want to make me laugh out loud, post such a name.
On the other hand, Scheer isn't the only newspaper columnist whom I can point out who has donated large sums to Democrats.
Slate.com, the Village Voice, and the Seattle Times all have or have had top staff with histories of giving money soley to Democrats, as does Scheer at the LA Times (employed there due to his wife's role there), for instance.
It's a decidely one-way playing field from what I've been able to gather...though you *might* find some Republican donors if you searched broadcast (radio, TV) journalists thoroughly enough.
I listened to most, but not all, of the presser this morning and I did not hear McClellan say that.
Please do. You'll never believe another lefty reporter or columnist again while you'll still have plenty on our side.
Incidentally, last night I was looking up some stuff on the Black Panthers and found mention of a trip Scheer made with Eldridge Cleaver to North Korea and North Vietnam in 1970.
I didn't hear him say that
GET LIBERALLARRY...
"Nope. Rove is lying. Plame never had the authority to make that decision. She recommended him. That's all. Have you looked at his resume? I'd have recommended him. Anyone would have who cared more about competency than political loyalty."
...HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1441438/posts?page=25
Q Scott, some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance. Does the President see any need for that?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think there's a lot of discussion that's going on in the context of an ongoing investigation. This is based on some news reports that came out recently. I think you heard me talk about the importance of helping this investigation move forward. I don't think it's helpful for me from this podium to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think it's most helpful for me to not comment while that investigation continues. And these are all issues that some are trying to raise in the context of news reports. I don't think we should be prejudging the outcome of any investigation at this point.
Q But the issues of security clearance and criminal investigations are often on very separate tracks. So does the President see any reason, any necessity, at least in the interim, to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, the President -- first of all, let me back up -- some of you asked a couple of questions about does the President still have confidence in particular individuals, specifically Karl Rove. I don't want to get into commenting on things in the context of an ongoing investigation. So let me step back and point out that any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the President. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the President's confidence. And in terms of security clearances, there are a number of people at the White House that have various levels of security clearance. And I'm confident that those individuals have the appropriate security clearance. I haven't gone around looking at what those security clearances are.
Q But, Scott, are you suggesting -- I think it's pretty clear to everybody at this point you don't want to comment on the investigation. But the President has also spoken about this when asked. So does the President --
MR. McCLELLAN: Spoken about?
Q Well, he has spoken about these questions that have come up as part of a leak investigation. So does he retain confidence in Karl Rove, specifically?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. Any individual who works here at the White House has the President's confidence. They wouldn't be working here if they didn't have the President's confidence. That's why I stepped back from this and talked about it in the broader context.
Now, these questions are coming up in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I stated long ago, you all will remember, that the investigation is continuing, I want to be helpful to the investigation, I don't want to jeopardize anything in that investigation, and that's why I made a decision and the White House made a decision quite some time ago that we weren't going to get into commenting on questions related to that investigation.
Q But isn't the difficulty that you have said to the public, dating back to 2003, affirmatively, Karl Rove is not involved, and now we have evidence to the contrary? So how do you reconcile those two things? How does the President reconcile those two things?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, if I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation. I'm not going to do that from this podium. You do point out some statements that were made. I remember well the comments that were made. After that point, I also remember going and testifying in this investigation. I remember well individuals who are involved overseeing this investigation expressing their preference personally to me that we not get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I think that's the way to be most helpful as they move forward, and that's why I'm in the position that I am. I'm not going to get into jumping on every news report as the investigation continues and trying to comment on them, because I don't think that's helpful.
So I think you have to step back from any individual news story or individual reports. Let's let the investigation take place. I look forward to talking about some of these matters once the investigation is complete. I welcome the opportunity to talk about some of these questions, but I don't think it's appropriate to do so at this time.
Q Let's just -- just one final --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I think the American people can understand and appreciate that.
Q Well, we'll see. But I just have one final question on this. The question of whether a law has been broken, a crime committed, is a separate matter. You're not going to resolve that; that's for a grand jury to decide. But we know what the facts are. We know that Karl Rove spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife, referring to the fact that she worked at the Agency. You've heard Democrats who say that -- say today that alone was inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish by having the conversation he did? And does the President think that it was fair of him to do that? Was it fair game?
MR. McCLELLAN: Now, that's a question related to an ongoing investigation. The investigation continues, David. I think you know that very well. I've responded to that question. And if I were to start commenting on news reports or things related to the investigation, I'm getting into prejudging the outcome of that investigation. I don't want to do that from this podium. Let's let the investigation take place, and let's let the investigators bring all the facts together and draw the conclusions that they draw, and then we will know the facts at that point.
Q But, Scott, there's a difference between what's legal and what's right. Is what Karl Rove did right?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I mean, you can state the obvious. I understand and appreciate that, and I appreciate you all. I know you all want to get to the bottom of this. I want to get to the bottom of it; the President has said no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than he does. We want to see it come to a successful conclusion. The best way to help the investigation come to a successful conclusion is for me not to get into discussing it from this podium. I don't think that --
Q Well, wait, wait, wait --
MR. McCLELLAN: Wait -- I don't think that helps advance the investigation.
Q All right, you say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working, obviously, on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like, Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story. And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as, Cooper -- the Time reporter -- called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this. So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I'll let them speak to that. What I know is that the President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion, and that means not commenting on it from this podium.
Q Well, if --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I understand your question.
Q Well, Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They're getting that information from here, from Karl Rove.
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, you're asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you've had my response on that.
Q At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement --
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I'll come back to you if I can.
Q -- of September 29th, 2003, that it is simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identify of a CIA operative? Can you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it's not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing.
Q So should we take that as a yes or a no?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Dick.
Q Can you explain why --
Q Scott, this was a statement you made, on the record, 21-months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday.
There is more if you can stand it...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-4.html
Is that the blonde, our blonde, in the photo with the BJ?
Do you know, the first time I saw a photo of this arm candy, I thought..."I wonder if this rag and hank of hair is one of Clinton's babes?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.